RIAA Admits They Accused Someone By Mistake... But They're Still Watching Her
from the whooooops dept
A little more evidence that the RIAA's subpoena-and-sue strategy has been a bit hasty. They've now admitted that one of the lawsuits they filed was a mistake (ooops, sorry about that) and there's no evidence the woman in question shared any music files. They've therefore dropped the lawsuit against the 66-year-old sculptor who doesn't even seem sure what file sharing software is - and is unlikely to have been sharing hardcore rap songs, as the RIAA contended in the lawsuit they filed against her. The RIAA's lawyers don't seem particularly apologetic about the mistake, saying: "Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant." How nice of them. Couldn't the RIAA now be accused of filing frivolous lawsuits?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dynamic IP Addresses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dynamic IP Addresses
As I understand it the RIAA collects evidence of a file sharing event at a certain time (Zulu) and then determines who owns that number. This will give them the ISP. They then subpoena the ISP for a name / email addr. for that time. Note that the RIAA has no direct access to the actual logs since they contain much info which they have no right to see (even under the DMCA).
This raises a question of evidence. I would think that at the time of the trial (assuming no settlement) the RIAA would need to prove the relationship between the IP number and the user. Presumably that meens that the origional logs have to be used as evidence. Does this meen that the ISP is required to keep these for that time. An, if so, how does the court know that they have not been tampered with. These are the real questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dynamic IP Addresses
IANAL, but unless there's a specific suit which names the ISP as an involved party and involves discovery, would that ISP be required to retain all logs or still keep up their regular day-to-day routine thereby deleting old logs.
My ISP also contracts with another company to provide dial-up access. Those systems aren't owned or run by my ISP, so a separate subpoena would be required for that company as well. Depending on the time lag, there may be no logs to review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue, Sue, Sue ...
Who died and made the RIAA the " New American Gestapo " ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight RIAA intimidatiion!
Thanks to the Google search engine, I was able to find your e-mail address. Anyway, you might be interested to know about certain clauses in the United States Constitution.
Those clauses are cited by one A Alexander "Bogey" Stella in an internet article. In his article, Mr Stella disputes the constitutionality of recent law suits, filed by the RIAA against people who download music. If you're interested in reading the article, all you need do is scroll down a bit, after clicking on the pink hyperlink below:
UP AGAINST THE BULKHEAD!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it happens sometimes that hyperlinks have to transferred directedly, like so:
URL: http://www.bcvoice.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=154
Or, maybe, you need only click on my hi-lited name. Oh, one more thing, please ignore the snide remark some scabrous graffito vandal appended to the end of the article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]